Jump to content
This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Sean_M

Vol 2 All the Spitfire questions here

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Max Headroom said:

I have a 1/72 Airfix Mk.I giveaway from the Daily Mail and quite fancy converting it to one of the early PR types in the same way that actual airframes were modded. I know that the canopy will probably need to be changed but my main question relates to the wings. They were unarmoured, but were they fitted with new dedicated wings, or were they merely modified by removing guns and patching over the gun holes and ejector chutes? All the pictures I’ve googled only show the fuselage and there’s are no clear pictures of the wing. I have a vague bell ringing that some of the early conversions also carried cameras in the wings (as well or instead of fuselage ones?). Again would existing wings have been modified or new ones fitted?

 

Basically, do I need to fill in all the wing panel detail!

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Trevor

I think the PR.1G might be a relatively straight forward proposition.  It had the standard 'A' wing of 4 x .303 MGs per wing.  There were two camera apertures in the bottom of the rear fuselage just behind the rear centre section plus two windows, one on each side, for the obliquely mounted camera one in the middle of the radio bay door and the other on the corresponding opposite side.  It also had the standard armoured windscreen.  Other than the camera ports the only visible differences from a standard Mk1 were teardrop panels on each side of the sliding hood and no radio mast.

Edited by Meatbox8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an MPM Spitfire PR XI in 1/72nd scale.

 

Can I make a PR X from it so I can take part in the BM 10th Anniversary GB?

 

IanJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PR.X would need the same (fuselage) mods as an F.VII: pressure bulkhead, fighter windscreen, no door, intake for pressurisation.  Keep the longer ailerons, though.

Edited by gingerbob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, gingerbob said:

The PR.X would need the same (fuselage) mods as an F.VII: pressure bulkhead, fighter windscreen, no door, intake for pressurisation.  Keep the longer ailerons, though.

No canopy rails, though. Did I remember that correctly?

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bonhoff said:

I have an MPM Spitfire PR XI in 1/72nd scale.

 

Can I make a PR X from it so I can take part in the BM 10th Anniversary GB?

 

IanJ

Ian

 

they only made 16 PR.X's

Been discussed before

On 03/06/2017 at 19:01, Troy Smith said:

 

https://www.airrecce.co.uk/WW2/recce_ac/RAFAR.html

  Quote

The PR Mk X appeared in Spring 1944 (long after the PR Mk XI).

It was the PR version of the standard Mk VII fighter,

produced by matching the fuselage from a Mk VII with the wings from the PR Mk XI, 

t_spit_pr_mk10_657.jpg

 

The pressurised hood, fighter windscreen  and long ailerons clearly visible even in this small pic.

 

A brief aside, the PR.X was in High Altitude Fighter scheme, PRU Blue underside and Medium Sea Grey uppers.

 

just about visible,  look at the lower cowl panel line

t_spit10_169.jpg

this also shows the pressurisation intake on the cowl.

 

 

 

Hood is the same as the Mk.VII

useful thread here with detail pics

http://www.network54.com/Forum/149674/thread/1431526148/Spitfire+Mk+VIIc...no+cockpit+door--

Quote

On the Mk.VI and early VIIs (I think NASM's is "early", but don't remember offhand) the hood had to be "bolted" down, and sometimes the aircraft were flown with the hood left off. Later VIIs, PR.Xs, and PR.XIXs (except the early ones that were unpressurized) had the external rails for a sliding hood, as Jun's photo shows. They could be jettisoned- the rails were spring loaded and would "pop" outboard (hinged on lower edge), releasing the hood.

bob

 

Quote

Late Mk. VII. Lobelle Sliding Canopy

May 13 2015, 11:40 AM 
 
[linked image]

 

HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phew, I had a moment of panic when I saw Troy quoting me, but looks like I was right- the NASM Mk.VII does have an earlier-style canopy.  Which doesn't matter if we're talking PR.X, because it will be like the last photo, with external rails (which would spring open to release the canopy if the pilot wants to get out in a hurry).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry if this has been asked already but any word if the new Mk Vb Spitfire from Revell in 1/72 is any good?

 

Cheers,

Dermot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth your while doing a search of the site, as it has been discussed already.  As I recall comments were not generally complimentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dermo245 said:

Sorry if this has been asked already but any word if the new Mk Vb Spitfire from Revell in 1/72 is any good?

 

Cheers,

Dermot

 

Hi Dermot

 

see

 

and

you may find this of use, 

HTH

T

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, 

 

I'm modelling a Tamiya Spitfire Mk.1 as codename DW-O from 610 squadron. As far as i know, the decals in the Tamiya box depict serial no. L1043, which from photographs either doesn't have a serial or it was removed in the photo.

 

Spitfire-MkI-RAF-610Sqn-DW-K-Battle-of-B

 

Thing is, that particular spit, L1043, was sent to a training unit before the Battle of Britain hitting a tree in 1941, and as much as possible I'd rather build a subject that took part in the battle itself. 

 

Spitfire serial no. R6595, flown by Frank Kinnersley Webster is a subject that I'd prefer to model instead, but with no references as to how that aircraft was painted and with pictures from L1043 existing as the only decent references for how DW-O would look like as R6595, I'm not sure how it should be painted and decalled exactly, especially since some profiles and models I've seen depict a fin flash or presence of an underside roundel on R6595 different from what is seen on L1043. 

 

 

 

Does anyone know or have any references for what the fin flashes and roundels should look like on R6595 without any photographs of the actual aircraft to go by, other than that of L1043's?

 

Thanks! Sorry if the question seems too obvious or lengthy.

Edited by Columbia20713

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Columbia20713 said:

Hi, 

 

I'm modelling a Tamiya Spitfire Mk.1 as codename DW-O from 610 squadron. As far as i know, the decals in the Tamiya box depict serial no. L1043, which from photographs either doesn't have a serial or it was removed in the photo.

 

Spitfire-MkI-RAF-610Sqn-DW-K-Battle-of-B

 

Thing is, that particular spit, L1043, was sent to a training unit before the Battle of Britain hitting a tree in 1941, and as much as possible I'd rather build a subject that took part in the battle itself. 

 

Spitfire serial no. R6595, flown by Frank Kinnersley Webster is a subject that I'd prefer to model instead, but with no references as to how that aircraft was painted and with pictures from L1043 existing as the only decent references for how DW-O would look like as R6595, I'm not sure how it should be painted and decalled exactly, especially since some profiles and models I've seen depict a fin flash or presence of an underside roundel on R6595 different from what is seen on L1043. 

 

 

 

Does anyone know or have any references for what the fin flashes and roundels should look like on R6595 without any photographs of the actual aircraft to go by, other than that of L1043's?

 

Thanks! Sorry if the question seems too obvious or lengthy.

 

I built this a number of years back. The photo was taken the second week of June and by this stage L1043 had had her serial removed. By the time of the BoB L1043 had been transferred to 266 Sqn by the time the Battle officially started.

 

However if you want to make her as she appeared as in the photo, here is what I did:

 

- No serial number on fuselage sides.

- The fin flash was incorrectly applied with the blue section forward

- 610 had applied a new underside colour as per the AM order on the 6th June stating Sky. However the photos appear to show a dark shade than standard Sky which would imply a squadron mix or even a different shade (Paul Lucas suggested BS 361 (1930) No.1 Sky Blue which is what I used)

- Tamiya's suggestion for the small upper wing roundels is incorrect, use the standard 56'' roundel

 

I'll post up a couple of photos of my interpretation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also if you want to do R6595 then you really need to give a rough date for when you would like to portray her as how 610's Spits looked in the second week of June will be different (albeit slightly) if we are talking later in the Battle - proper Sky might be applied, reinstatement of underwing roundels dependent on date, serial number present, etc.

 

I have several photos of 610 at Hawkinge in July if that may help.

Edited by Smithy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW you may want to check the 610 Sqn ORB for July (available from the National Archives for download) to see that R6595 is actually listed as serving with the sqn as there seems to be mixed evidence for whether this airframe did indeed serve with 610. If R6595 flew operationally with 610 it will be recorded in the ORB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Columbia20713 said:

Does anyone know or have any references for what the fin flashes and roundels should look like on R6595 without any photographs of the actual aircraft to go by, other than that of L1043's?

 

try reading this

http://www.boxartden.com/gallery/index.php/Profiles/Camoflage-Markings/01-Supermarine-Spitfire

 

it's very good at sorting what happened when and why, in this case variations of fin stripes, roundels etc, 

 But without a photo, and these are rare, it the realm of the 'best guess'

 

also http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p009.html

Quote
R6595 Ia 679 EA MIII FF 7-5-40 8MU 9-5-40 PDU 28-5-40 VAEA 4-6-40 PDU 28-7-40 Damaged by Bf109 over Folkestone and crashed on approach Hawkinge 26-8-40

 

no listing that I can see R6595 was with 610 Sq, as mentioned by Smithy, so without the ORB you won't know.

 

the production listing is useful as it can give hints,   if a plane was  built before or after a certain date the factory finish will be different, if it was damaged and went to a MU it might have been repainted in the specified correct markings,   for example, the 'sky' controversy,   Spitfires built after mid-june 1940 are likely to be have been finished in proper Sky, as  this is what was ordered,  and presumably supplied,   but one built earlier is a good candidate for a unit applied variation.

 read the linked monograph, as it will give you a far better understanding of the marking evolutions.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Smithy said:

Also if you want to do R6595 then you really need to give a rough date for when you would like to portray her as how 610's Spits looked in the second week of June will be different (albeit slightly) if we are talking later in the Battle - proper Sky might be applied, reinstatement of underwing roundels dependent on date, serial number present, etc.

 

I have several photos of 610 at Hawkinge in July if that may help.

I was thinking of modelling it at near the time that it was shot down - Which would be around late August 1940. The photos would be very useful especially as references for weathering and location of serials - Thanks!

1 hour ago, Smithy said:

BTW you may want to check the 610 Sqn ORB for July (available from the National Archives for download) to see that R6595 is actually listed as serving with the sqn as there seems to be mixed evidence for whether this airframe did indeed serve with 610. If R6595 flew operationally with 610 it will be recorded in the ORB.

There seems to be some debate on whether the aircraft that flew with 610 Squadron (and the aircraft which P/O Frank Webster was shot down in) was R6595 or a different aircraft with the same lettering (for example, sn no. X4011), though upon looking at the website of the 610 Squadron as well as some of the interpretations of the ORB during August 1940, R6595 seems to be generally believed by some to be the aircraft that was with 610 Squadron until being shot down on 26 Aug. 1940. Whichever the case is, I'd prefer to model R6595 instead.

10 minutes ago, Troy Smith said:

try reading this

http://www.boxartden.com/gallery/index.php/Profiles/Camoflage-Markings/01-Supermarine-Spitfire

 

it's very good at sorting what happened when and why, in this case variations of fin stripes, roundels etc, 

 But without a photo, and these are rare, it the realm of the 'best guess'

 

also http://www.airhistory.org.uk/spitfire/p009.html

 

no listing that I can see R6595 was with 610 Sq, as mentioned by Smithy, so without the ORB you won't know.

 

the production listing is useful as it can give hints,   if a plane was  built before or after a certain date the factory finish will be different, if it was damaged and went to a MU it might have been repainted in the specified correct markings,   for example, the 'sky' controversy,   Spitfires built after mid-june 1940 are likely to be have been finished in proper Sky, as  this is what was ordered,  and presumably supplied,   but one built earlier is a good candidate for a unit applied variation.

 read the linked monograph, as it will give you a far better understanding of the marking evolutions.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the assistance! The links will be very useful to refer to for the markings. I'll read up on it further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering a build of a 1:48 Spitfire Mk.XII, using the Griffon nose from the Special Hobby kit married to the chassis of the Eduard Mk.VIII kit, which has the "C" wing and retractable tail wheel.

A similar conversion appears on Scalemodels.ru, but I have only found this one example - a very nice job, but short on construction clues or problems faced.

I'm aware of the underwing mods and minor cleanups and corrections, but this seems  pretty straight forward.

Has any one done or considered this kit bash ? Any info appreciated !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that the Mk.XII had the short single-stage Griffon not the longer 2-stage Griffon of the Mk.XIV (which I presume is what you've got?)  Plus only a 4-blade prop.  All Mk.XIIs had Mk.V wings without the short ailerons of the Mk.VIII: half had Mk.V tails (fixed tailwheels) and the others Mk.VIII tails (retractable tailwheels).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Remember that the Mk.XII had the short single-stage Griffon not the longer 2-stage Griffon of the Mk.XIV (which I presume is what you've got?)  Plus only a 4-blade prop.  All Mk.XIIs had Mk.V wings without the short ailerons of the Mk.VIII: half had Mk.V tails (fixed tailwheels) and the others Mk.VIII tails (retractable tailwheels).

Hi Graham, is it 'safe' to suppose that MkV derived machines would have been in the EN serial range and those from the MkVIII in the MB range?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say that was a reasonable assumption, but they were all Mk.XIIs and not "derived" half-and-half.  All the wings were Mk.V standard, only the tails were half-and-half.  The Mk.XII was the first variant with flush-riveted fuselages and the wide-chord rudder, on all examples.  It preceded the Mk.VIII: I think that the fuselage was then used for Mk.VIII and subsequent variants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Graham Boak said:

Remember that the Mk.XII had the short single-stage Griffon not the longer 2-stage Griffon of the Mk.XIV (which I presume is what you've got?)  Plus only a 4-blade prop.  All Mk.XIIs had Mk.V wings without the short ailerons of the Mk.VIII: half had Mk.V tails (fixed tailwheels) and the others Mk.VIII tails (retractable tailwheels).

Thanks, Graham - what I have is the Special Hobby Mk.XII kit - the example on the Russian site uses the Airfix Mk.XII, but it's in the configuration I want:

Special Hobby Kit:

Conversion:

http://scalemodels.ru/articles/9192-konversija-Eduard-1-48-Spitfire-Mk-XII.html

 

No Mk.XIV in the mix. I'm really looking for someone who has looked into or done the Specific Eduard/SH kitbash, and is familiar with those kits. The Eduard Mk.VIII does have the short ailerons, but the long ones are included on Sprue F.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Graham Boak said:

I'd say that was a reasonable assumption, but they were all Mk.XIIs and not "derived" half-and-half.  All the wings were Mk.V standard, only the tails were half-and-half.  The Mk.XII was the first variant with flush-riveted fuselages and the wide-chord rudder, on all examples.  It preceded the Mk.VIII: I think that the fuselage was then used for Mk.VIII and subsequent variants.

Both serial batches had the standard balanced elevator horns ands no wing navigation lights, IIRC. Some had flat wheel covers, some had uncovered 5-spoke wheels. Find a photo of the one you want to do. Allied Wings No. 1 on the Mk XII is an outstanding modeling/photo source. Also, if memory serves, only one Mk XII pilot made ace while flying one, and IIRC was a 41 squadron pilot. (Any minute now, Graham is going to appear in my 'six and shoot the pants off of me!)

Mike 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, falcon04 said:

Considering a build of a 1:48 Spitfire Mk.XII, using the Griffon nose from the Special Hobby kit married to the chassis of the Eduard Mk.VIII kit, which has the "C" wing and retractable tail wheel.

A similar conversion appears on Scalemodels.ru, but I have only found this one example - a very nice job, but short on construction clues or problems faced.

I'm aware of the underwing mods and minor cleanups and corrections, but this seems  pretty straight forward.

Has any one done or considered this kit bash ? Any info appreciated !

 

My question, why bother?

(EDIT closer look at original post, you link the same build I found,which grafts an Airfix XII nose onto an Eduard VIII body I comment on this further down)

 

Overall the SH XII kits looks decent enough in the box. 

 

For some reason the SH Spitfire and Seafire kits get a real drubbing on the net.   

 

AFAIK the only 'major' issue is that they are slightly short in the fuselage,  and as such the trailing edge of the wing is too far back.

 

UNLESS YOU ARE AN OBSSIVE AMS SPITFIRE NUT IT'S NOT A BIG  DEAL.

 

this is the about the SH Seafire,  but IIRC it the same problem in all the SH kits.  If my SH XII is too hand I will  double check in a mo.

 

Quote

If you can deal with limited run, and some minor faults, Special Hobby.
Fixing the short fuselage is pretty easy too, and you move the wing forward the same as the front splice, and reshape the rear wing fillet.

dark grey SH, light grey Airfix Vb
sehttp://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234984144-seafire-mk-iii-question/

[linked image]

 

the orange  pencil on the fuselage fillet is how to far back the wing is.....  the white line is the added section to  the fuel tank,  which moves the wing forward as well as correcting the length issue.

 

here shows the forward splice,  the rear is the other one added,   note lines on the cutting mat
[linked image]


read the links, and thishttp://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234968126-148-airfix-seafire-xv/page-2#entry1756881

some heated debate, make your own mind up, but I spent a lot of time cross referencing kits vs 3 sets of 3 rated drawings, (Cooke, Cox, Mortofon ) and illustrated my findings.



 

 

 

Note the Seafire XV is same basic fuselage as the Spitfire XII

 

If you are,  fixing the problems is still less work and effort than grafting on the nose and blending it in,  along with the cost of both kits,   unless you want the Eduard rivet detail... 

 

or did  you mean this conversion?

http://scalemodels.ru/articles/9192-konversija-Eduard-1-48-Spitfire-Mk-XII.html

where someone grafted the Airfix XII  nose onto an Eduard VIII?

Even a quick scan shows they get it wrong, as the Airfix nose and prop blades are wrong,  and using the VIII blades is wrong, as they are not the same

have a read here for more on 1/48th Spitfire XII's

 

PLease ask for any clarifications if you need them.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JosephLalor said:

Hi Graham, is it 'safe' to suppose that MkV derived machines would have been in the EN serial range and those from the MkVIII in the MB range?

 

16 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

The Mk.XII was the first variant with flush-riveted fuselages and the wide-chord rudder, on all examples.  It preceded the Mk.VIII: I think that the fuselage was then used for Mk.VIII and subsequent variants.

 

No, it is not safe to suppose- the serials are irrelevant, because by the time they were built they were 100 Mk.XIIs.  [Edit: I just checked, and the order was actually placed originally for "Mk.Vc".  A number of different variants were ultimately built in this serial range, including some Mk.VIIIs, but it was never correct to say that the MB Mk.XIIs were "offsets of Mk.VIII orders".]  Since Supermarine was transitioning from "Vc/IX" airframe to "VII/VIII" airframe at the time the Mk.XII was in production, it was simply a question of available stern ends (as Supermarine sometimes called them).  The same is true for very early PR.XIs.  I haven't pinned it down, but I think the retractable tailwheels came in (on the XII) early in the MB sequence, but not WITH the MB serials.  As for the fuselage, I think it is most accurate to say that the XII and the VIII shared some new features.

 

One other thing about the Eduard VIII idea- the XII doesn't have the wing fuel tanks.  A "IXc late" might be the better starting point.  And splined gear, not the later type, remember.

Edited by gingerbob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×